EU Surveillance Studies Disclosed By Pirate Party

Spliffster writes "The German Pirate Party has disclosed some secret documents on how the EU is planning to monitor citizens. The so called INDECT Documents describe how a seamless surveillance could (or should) be implemented across Europe. The use of CCTV cameras, the Internet (social networks), and even the use of UAVs are mentioned as data sources. Two of the nine documents can be downloaded from the German Pirate Party's website (PDFs in English)."

Comments

This is why we vote Pirate

[Local ID10T]

No thank you to the surveillance state... we have all seen Metropolis, and as cool as it was, we don't want to live there.

Re:This is why we vote Pirate

[Compaqt]

US: GPS scanners on cars
India: Blackberry keys/40-bit encryption
UAE: Etelisat certificate/man-in-the-middle
Germany: INDECT
UK: CCTV/Echelon

People everywhere are under attack by the armed gangs otherwise known as government. Then we have the gang union (UN)'s telecoms guy saying companies need to work with governments.

People need to stop fighting each other and unite against their own governments.

Re:This is why we vote Pirate

[Gordonjcp]

I don't see how you can equate CCTV in the UK with the mess that the US has got itself into. Firstly, the oft-quoted 4 million cameras is a figure made up by one of the far-right tabloid newpapers based on the number of cameras in about a quarter mile of the main street of a fairly rough part of London. If that figure was even remotely accurate, you'd pass a CCTV camera every 50 metres or so on every road in the UK right down to farm tracks.

Here's the kicker. Every major city in the US has got just as much CCTV surveillance as London! Yes, you're "spied on" just as much in New York as you are in London, and you've got armed police ready and willing to shoot you, too. It must be awful living in the US, with that constant threat over you all the time.

Re:This is why we vote Pirate

[Requiem18th]

Yes, it is, you can't even gather people without begging for permission to the government. It only seems like it is not an issue when you are a passive consumer working for the system. Try to even speak your mind against the government outside of a free speech cage in a way that doesn't make you look like a raving lunatic and you'll get the police sent after you.

http://youtu.be/akwjAjcQnqM

Re:This is why we vote Pirate

[Gordonjcp]

The royal family don't really have anything to do with government. They're more of a tourist attraction. I prefer the zoo, myself.

Re:This is why we vote Pirate

[Custard Horse]

At least we have diversity in government. When are you English cads going to have a black royal. Our first black members of congress were seated in the 1800's, when are you getting a black Duke?

That's a little simplistic. The royal family is a 'family' and no control can be exerted over them - they marry whomever they marry. Are you suggesting that the British public somehow force a non-white person into the family?

Moreover, there is no shortage of cultural diversity in the royal family. The queen is basically German her husband is Greek. Or do you only measure cultural diversity by the colour of somebody's skin? Shame on you.

Re:This is why we vote Pirate

[LingNoi]

Yes, it is, you can't even gather people without begging for permission to the government.

You'd prefer uncontrolled mass riots? Let me give you a clear example of what happens from one I recently experienced first hand in Thailand.

People gather, everything is good, they're annoying but not causing any trouble. Splinter groups start getting violent and causing trouble. They attack the police and military there to move them out with grenade launchers and ak47s. It turns into a full blown riot with people getting killed and destroying property. Next you know, the whole city center is on fire.

So cry me a river about your right to form mass uncontrolled protests without police planning and assistance.

Re:This is why we vote Pirate

[rtb61]

Arse about face much. Those riots are the result of a police state and by no stretch of the imagination do peaceful protest create the police state. When the state seeks to monitor all individuals all of the time it does so with the express intent of controlling those individuals all of the time. Express an undesirable opinion and get fired, company won't fire company loses lucrative contracts. Once fired never again gain a one of the few remaining middle class jobs and if that isn't enough all your relatives also lose their opportunities.

Now add random arrests based upon circumstantial digital evidence where the penalty is the imprisonment awaiting trial and the cost of the trial followed by a whoops and a rinse and repeat for another charge (each time it is repeated under public opinion the more likely you are guilty rather than innocent, now ain't that a kicker).

A surveillance society from the top down. First the politicians, then the police and then the rich and greedy. If they can tolerate their life under surveillance 24/7 visible by general public and not end up in prison within a couple of years, than we can start talking about the rest of society. First and foremost police officers should be made to wear head mounted cameras whilst on duty and with a strict enforcement policy that they are never to commence arrest operations until the camera has been activated, with greater power comes greater responsibility and greater accountability. If the police refuse why the fuck should we accept it.

Re:This is why we vote Pirate

[MichaelSmith]

The royal family don't really have anything to do with government. They're more of a tourist attraction. I prefer the zoo, myself.

I don't know about the UK but here in Australia the constitution is a thin booklet which basically says The Queen is in charge of Australia and may or may not decide to take advice from a Parliament which may or may not exist.

Re:This is why we vote Pirate

[cheekyjohnson]

"You'd prefer uncontrolled mass riots?"

I'd rather be allowed to protest in an "uncontrolled" group than allow the government to decide what is appropriate for me to protest and abuse its powers in any and every way it can. The constitution mentions *no* exceptions to protests. What good is it if they're just going to ignore the parts that they don't like? Law of the land? Yeah, right. It's sad when violent riots occur, but it's worth it to at least be able to protest in the first place.

Re:This is why we vote Pirate

[almitchell]

I am displeased with my need to respond to you, but here goes: Are you high? Really? Afraid to move back to the US? What kind of habits, lifestyle, and hobbies do you have that would put you in the path of police to get arrested and have all these horrible terrible things happen to you? What kind of social group do you move in to put yourself into the path of police to have your rights so horribly terribly violated? Good god, man, move to Russia if you really want to be afraid of sh*t. Or Belarus. Or Somalia. Or Greece. Or Columbia.

Re:This is why we vote Pirate

[Anonymous Coward]

The royal family is a 'family' and no control can be exerted over them - they marry whomever they marry...

... unless of course they marry a Catholic or an American divorcee, in which cases they lose their claim to the throne...

Re:This is why we vote Pirate

[Rich0]

Well, the reality is that police do everything he mentioned, but it is only some of the police, and it is relatively infrequent. In the US, you're probably only a little more likely to be abused by a police officer than you are to die in an airplane crash. Generally you have to end up interacting with police for that to happen. Being a criminal of course is the easiest way to end up dealing with the police. However, ticking off a neighbor or an ex-spouse, or just being really unlucky can get you there as well.

I don't think I'd consider this as a reason to not move to the US, unless you also use airline safety statistics to decide what country to live in.

However, to outright dismiss his concerns is to take the opposite extreme. We certainly take airline safety seriously, and this is less of a problem than police corruption. Reforms are clearly needed, since nobody should have any reason to fear anything but due processes if they are accused of a crime.

Re:This is why we vote Pirate

[maxume]

You just spoke your mind against the government.

Re:This is why we vote Pirate

[Bucc5062]

I think the point you missed was the splinter groups that use a uncontrolled "peaceful" protest to spark conflict. I am all for assembly to protest. In a saner world I even agree to keeping the authority out of it especially if I am protesting against that said authority, peacefully.

Today it seems that peaceful turns violent because of an agenda on the fringe to provoke attack. Peaceful assembly still has to be lawful aseembly or the point is lost. The King marches, sits down, those worked because when the violence came, it was so out of proportion to the protest it solidified support. Want to make a statement, get 10,000 people to go to Washington and protest with a sit in at the capitol. Make the police drag them away and as one leaves, one enters. There is a point when those in charge will listen much more so then if violence was used. Violent riots are worthless and tend to do more harm than good.

Re:This is why we vote Pirate

[DrugCheese]

Reforms are clearly needed, since nobody should have any reason to fear anything but due processes if they are accused of a crime.

If we're to put cameras up why not equip each police officer with a wireless cam that transmits the signal through their car live over the internet. As soon as they sign in it has to be on until they sign out. They can be logged and archived and would probably do a lot of good in court. You'd also hear a ton of them whine about it cause they'd have to change their behavior.

Re:This is why we vote Pirate

[Speare]

The police who engage in beatings, theft, coercion, punishment tazering, etc., are bad and deserve to lose their jobs, no doubt about it. There are a lot of cops who say that there are very few "bad cops" but every cop who remains silent to protect such thuggery is a bad cop.

Re:This is why we vote Pirate

[piraat]

And sometimes it's not even splinter groups, but the police itself! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gAfzUOx53Rg

Re:This is why we vote Pirate

[mcgrew]

In 1970 there was a massive, peaceful protest against the Vietnam war at Kent State University. The government reacted by killing protesters.

I was a senior in high school when it happened, about a month before graduation. It was a relly big deal at the time, all over the news.

Re:This is why we vote Pirate

[AnarChaos]

i totally agree with you on this, i don't think CCTV or however you want to call it will solve anything, on the contrary... it gives governments and police a very powerful tool to dominate the masses ("we have proof you know!") while at the same time it leaves "them" (authorities, cops,...) in a position where they can cover up their own actions. This reminds me of David Brin's masterpiece "Earth", in which the "right to privacy" was swapped around into a "right to knowledge". If police/politicians demand cameras on every streetcorner to monitor the people, then we as people should "arm" ourselves with cameras as well and make sure we have footage of their actions as well, so we can provide "proof against proof" if need be! it's about time we demand transparancy from our ruling elites! (and yup, that also means ending the secrecy of banks) Freedom is not free, it requires a continuous struggle against those who seek to take it from us by force or deception!

Re:This is why we vote Pirate

[delinear]

Maybe I'm failing to see the bigger picture, but how does the question of whether a protest is controlled or uncontrolled have any bearing on whether it is hijacked by a splinter group with an agenda? Here in the UK we can now only have controlled assemblies by law, yet we still have riots, even as recently as last year with the G20 riots (where 350+ people were arrested). Use traffic flow or commerce or politically/religious/ethnic sensitivity or whatever other reason you can think of to justify laws controlling peaceful assembly, but don't use the fear of riots because we are living proof that riots happen regardless. On the other hand, when a million people turn up in the capital to protest an illegal war and the government presses on regardless, you can begin to understand why a frustrated handful of people think violence is the answer - after all, the government is setting the example.

Re:This is why we vote Pirate

[dkleinsc]

You'd prefer uncontrolled mass riots? Let me give you a clear example of what happens from one I recently experienced first hand in Thailand.

Let me give you a clear example of what happens from what a lot of people experienced in Chicago in 1968:
People gather, everything is good, and they aren't annoying anybody really. The police decide to unlawfully break up the protest. It turns into a full blown police riot.

Or if that examples goes too far back, you can look at Los Angeles in 2007.

A fair number of police want protests to get violent, some because beating up protesters makes them feel powerful, some because they disagree with the protesters politically, and some because their bosses fall into one of the first two groups. The real kicker is that a lot of the protesters that get beaten up by cops are frequently charged with assaulting a police officer.

Re:This is why we vote Pirate

[delinear]

They hardly cost the country billions, £37M is barely enough to put together a premier football team these days. In return I like the fact that we don't have a president - the power of the monarchy might only be theoretical these days but it's a reminder that parliament is not meant to be an absolute power, and the royals themselves contribute a lot in terms of bringing tourism (around £500m per year) and business investment to the country. I used to be anti-monarchy, and I'll admit I still like to grumble about them from time to time, and they do seem to enjoy making life difficult for themselves with contoversial public actions, but I've come around to thinking they probably are, on balance, good for the country.

Re:For what purpose?

[Kitkoan]

Surveillance is fine if theres... a Cold War

Thats a slippery slope to tread. When mentioned under the right words, that could be used with concepts of the global power rise of China, the nuclear ambitions of Iran, ect... hell, enough spin and it could be used with consideration of the Taliban. Just need to frame it right to the correct people and suddenly your in a pseudo-Cold War with whom ever you can demonize enough (that is also unable to stand against you too much).

It's interesting to see that....

[SwampChicken]

... loitering has been classified as a "dangerous activity" in the EU.

A blueprint for a bright new future...

[Jedi Alec]

I guess we should thank the German pirates for putting it out there so we can have a nice ruckus about it...before we forget about it again in a day or 2.

Re:A blueprint for a bright new future...

[noidentity]

That's why I like Slashdot's story reminder feature, which usually kicks in a day or two later, just as I'm forgetting about the story.

Orwell

[Superdarion]

I wonder if forcing every single human being to read George Orwell's 1984 would prevent this sort of thing from happening.

Perhaps it's just that people don't realize what could go wrong with an Orwellian government in place. Perhaps they just don't see it, they don't think anything can go wrong if the government watches your every step.

Then again, perhaps people just don't care. As long as it's not them (and by "them" i mean the generations that currently live) who suffer it, they just don't give a damn.

I can tell from personal experience that many people don't care about stuff like that even if you tell them the consequences. Perhaps Big Brother is precisely what we, as a civilization, need in order to realize that it's a horrible thing to live like that. After all, experience is a good teacher.

Re:Orwell

[Kitkoan]

People in government do read 1984. They've just confused it from a warning to a guide/how to book.

Re:Orwell

[someoneOtherThanMe]

I wonder if forcing every single human being to read George Orwell's 1984

I think we should force everybody. Of course, to be really sure they read it, they should do it in front of a camera. Moreover, the knowledge from the book has to be refreshed every now and then. Perhaps we should print some "Read your 1984 daily" flyers. Or force everybody to read at least a page every evening in bed. Of course, to be really sure they do it, we install cameras in their bedroom. I wonder what should do to those refusing to read it?

Re:Orwell

[Kuroji]

They also read Brave New World.

What they've found best is a mixture of Huxley and Orwell. Give the people their bread and circuses, and remove those who are unsatisfied by it.

Re:For what purpose?

[Superdarion]

Would you rather see everyone as a criminal and with that screw the innocent or see everyone as innocent and allow crime to fluorish?

Regardless of what people say, any politician openly stating that they prefer the second option will have his carreer ended by the public.

What I just don't understand is why, if crime rates have been going steadily down for some decades now, do they feel like they need to be more invasive and offensive in their fight against crime. Maybe it's all related to politics (and that "maybe" answers only to scientific precision, though I'm pretty sure that's the reason behind it all).

Re:For what purpose?

[lanswitch]

I've skimmed through the first pdf. It looks like they are trying to build an Event Control system. Designed to control and identify people at large events, like soccer games. Some countries in Europe have a real problem with soccer hooligans. Or just plain riots, like the ones in France last year. It's the cops who want a system to identify the rioters. Seems logical to me, Jim.

But the government could mis-use it for anything they want. And that scares me, as a E.U. citizen.

Wikileaks on INDECT

[AHuxley]

http://wikileaks.org/wiki/EU_social_network_spy_system_brief,_INDECT_Work_Package_4,_2009
Some deep ip, friend of friend of friend hunting software triggered by phrases, word use and IM connections.

Athors are from Slovakia

[rastos1]

On the second page of the first document are listed the authors - apparently tied to university in town Kosice in Slovakia. On behalf of other citizens of this country, I apologize. May be we should remind them about events that happened over 60 years ago when Slovak National Uprising happened and become the most significant activity of regular citizens against fascistic German army in Europe. This uprising happened despite the pro-German orientated government and would certainly not be possible with that level of surveillance as is proposed there.

Re:For what purpose?

[Kitkoan]

Business as usual in a big city would meet my description as a "large event" where people at like "hooligans" and can have riots (beyond Soccer games). And as you mentioned, it could be mis-used for anything they want. That much power is ripe for abuse and since it won't be monitored by the public, who can really say/report what it ends up truly being used for?

Everyone should be seen as innocent.

[elucido]

As far as I'm concerned everyone is innocent until proven guilty. And we have too many crimes, not too many criminals. When you make everything that people like to do or have to do illegal you create excuses for surveillance.

Re:wow

[Nursie]

No, it hasn't proved useful in the UK. they became so ubiquitous that people don't care, the feed quality is bad enough that the recorded video is useless to the police or the courts, there are far too many feeds for anyone to be watching half of them and...

Well, it's that sort of a thing. I guess a lot of these could be 'remedied' by deploying modern CCD based cameras and using some sort of magical computer vision thing. But the main issue here is that it's been found that they jut don't reduce crime.

They may make it easier to catch people afterwards, but they don't actually prevent anything.

They have an "ethics board"

[Animats]

The project has a 10-member "ethics board".

• 2 members are cops.
• 1 member is a retired cop.
• 1 member is a "human rights lawyer" who works for a police department.
• 1 member is a criminologist
• 4 members are involved in developing the technology.
• 1 member is a professor of ethics at Oxford.

Re:Not secret

[ludwigf]

Those documents aren't secret. They were released to the public by the INDECT project itself, ages ago. Right here!

Look again. The "D1.1 Report on the collection and analysis of user requirements" is not public available though the link you posted.

Can't fool me

[Zoxed]

> (PDFs in English)

Ha ha, PDFs, nice try. You are not going to catch me out :-)

Flamebait

[antientropic]

This is silly. The EU isn't "planning" anything. INDECT is an FP7 research project. So it's a bunch of universities and industrial partners that happened to get funding from the EU because the reviewers thought it was a scientifically interesting proposal. That doesn't mean anything the researchers come up with is EU policy. Besides, the EU doesn't have any authority or power whatsoever to impose a police state on its members.

(They have a FAQ, by the way.)

Re:For what purpose?

[Spliffster]

What happened to innocent until proven guilty? A system like this makes anyone a suspect (a potential criminal), this is very 1984 like!

My government is not allowed to survey me until a judge order so. The described goals are to survey everyone. The authors of INECT are absolutely aware that they would trump human rights (and they see it more as an annoyance than an problem), this is why INECT is trying to keep this shit secret.

To some of the commenters above; this has not much to do with Germany itself but the EU. It was just the German Pirate Party which leaked the documents.

-S

What??

[captainpanic]

I know FP7 projects. The EU is definitely interested in the outcome. They cost many millions of euros. It's not just an exercise.

Not all the outcomes of FP7 projects (or FP6 or older ones) will be used, but it shows a trend in which way the EU thinks that Europe should go.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seventh_Framework_Programme#FP7_Specific_Programmes

Part of the FP7 projects are quite fundamental, and therefore it is unlikely that they include "implementation", but the fact that they don't plan to implement this doesn't make me feel any more comfortable.

And the EU has LOADS of power to impose laws on its members. Already, the majority of laws in Europe come from Brussels... http://www.jcm.org.uk/blog/2009/06/what-percentage-of-laws-come-from-the-eu/
And with the Lisbon "Treaty", the decision making in Brussels was recently streamlined to make it all a little faster.

Re:What??

[Kiuas]

You missed something extremely important there.

Already, the majority of laws in Europe come from Brussels

I'm sorry, but that is just flatout wrong.

The majority of trade laws and laws relating to agriculture/production come from Brussels. But even under the Lisbon treaty the EU has no power whatsoever to impose criminal laws on its member nations. Therefore, even if the EU wanted to force police-state like control over its citizens, it has no means of doing so. EU does try to promote international police co-operation through Europol but Europol is just an organazation transfering and managing information, it has no rights to do arrests or search homes etc - all it can do is try and help local police forces to locate wanted high-profile criminals by relaying information from foreign agencies.

Don't get wrong, I'm as worried as the next /. about these kinds of projects but despite all the scaremongering the EU isn't quite as scary as you seem to think it is.

Re:For what purpose?

[chichilalescu]

related to your last question. first of all, you get votes for shouting and pointing fingers, not for reasonable arguments.
second: in the past, the big, easy to get crimes were targeted. as time passes, the crimes that can still be comitted are much "better", and harder to catch, so more and more effort (read as invasive and offensive) is needed. ultimately, the best way to fight crime is to put everyone in solitary confinement :)

Re:We?

[norpan]

Please don't monopolize the use of the word "we" to mean "EVERYONE". "We" could mean "me and my friend". It referers to a group of two or more people of which I am a member.

Re:For what purpose?

[The Master Control P]

*cough*War on Some Drugs*cough*War on Terror*cough*War against Iraq*cough*

Only those...

[NewtonsLaw]

Only those with something to hide have anything to fear...

That's why politicians are more than happy to have webcams in their houses connected directly to the internet for all the world to watch their activities.

Oh... what's that?

They're not happy to have webcams in their houses?

Hmmm... what does that mean I wonder?

Re:wow

[VShael]

"They may make it easier to catch people afterwards, but they don't actually prevent anything."

Just to emphasise, they may make it easier to catch *people*.
They do nothing to catch corporations obviously, though corporate crime is almost certainly a bigger threat to national security and well-being than any Joe Schmoe on the street.

In addition, by some strange coincidence, any time the police in the UK have been accused of misdeeds, (such as brutalising innocent members of the public) the relevant CCTV cameras have always been found to have been wiped/malfunctioning/looking in the wrong direction.

If street criminals have even 10% of the luck of these accused police officers, then the CCTV system is basically useless and pointless.
We'd be better off relying on members of the public and ubiquitous phone cams. At least *they* have caught the occasional police brutality incident. That makes them superior to the CCTV system in my opinion, and cheaper too.

Re:We?

[nashv]

We is first-person plural, Einstein. Flaming Fail - no pun intended, but the alliteration was.

Re:For what purpose?

[PatrickThomson]

What about police guards at G8 protests, certain sporting events? Surely by turning up they are assuming guilt. Never mind that there is a 100% occurrence of violent incidents and they would be derelict in duty by staying home... What about bobbies on the beat in rough neighbourhoods where someone gets stabbed every week? Are they being offensively oppresive? Stop being so asinine.

Brave New World

[Kupfernigk]

Huxley thought he was describing a dystopia, and failed. When I read BNW as a nerdy teenager I thought it was a really good idea. In Huxley's world, nerds get to live with other nerds on islands and build their own ideal societies, unbothered by the power mad, conformists and the stupid. Mustapha Mond, the world controller, is practically a Platonic philosopher-king. BNW is only a dystopia if you are conventionally religious, or have inflated ideas of the importance of the human race.

Re:Brave New World

[IndustrialComplex]

is only a dystopia if you are conventionally religious, or have inflated ideas of the importance of the human race.

Is this another way of saying, "It's only a dystopia if you don't believe the way I do."

Re:Brave New World

[dkleinsc]

That society, like most societies, is only an improvement if you're on top of the social heap. Similar to how most Ren Faire fans aren't so excited of the prospect of the real life of the average Renaissance person, which was generally a combination of working on a farm, being conscripted into an army, dying of plague (or dysentery or a host of other diseases), and praying to avoid dying of plague. Ditto for Ayn Rand's views - I have yet to meet an Ayn Rand fan who thinks that they're part of the unwashed masses who never accomplish anything important. Similarly, most Trek fans imagine themselves as a bridge officer instead of Second Class Deck Cleaner, and more Star Wars fans imagine themselves as a Jedi of some sort than some no-name moisture farmer.

It's all good fun, but hardly realistic.

Re:For what purpose?

[Spliffster]

Guarding certain events and proforma data monitoring of anybody is not the same. Did you read the PDF files (well this is slashdot)? I am the original poster, I did before submitting it to slashdot.

That's not true

[Anonymous Coward]

Look at the Swift issue, USA demanded access to our banking data. EU Commission defined it as a data protection issue and granted USA and EU rights to that data.

So now that data is Europol activity under the EU Commission.

You use the word 'coordinating' to get around the facts here, the EU is expanding into criminal law, and there's no legal basis for it, but it doesn't stop them.

It's coming, I've seen it

[DNS-and-BIND]

I live in China. This week, a friend of a friend left a large sum of money in a taxi. My friend's staff went down to the police station and came back with a record of surveillance video, all the stops the taxi made, a route the taxi took in Google Maps style format, the taxi driver's home address, ID card scan, and mobile phone number. This is coming to a nation near you, if it's not already there. It's funny, one of the ways you can tell if street construction is almost finished is when they install the surveillance cameras on poles.

Re:wow

[Richard_at_work]

In addition, by some strange coincidence, any time the police in the UK have been accused of misdeeds, (such as brutalising innocent members of the public) the relevant CCTV cameras have always been found to have been wiped/malfunctioning/looking in the wrong direction.

If street criminals have even 10% of the luck of these accused police officers, then the CCTV system is basically useless and pointless. We'd be better off relying on members of the public and ubiquitous phone cams. At least *they* have caught the occasional police brutality incident. That makes them superior to the CCTV system in my opinion, and cheaper too.

Well, that statement is complete bollocks, I can think of several high profile cases where a police officer has been caught 'brutalising innocent members of the public' on CCTV in cases that made it all the way to court. Here's one that happened within the past week:

"A police officer has been jailed for six months after he was caught on CCTV throwing a woman into a cell, badly injuring her.

The footage also shows Sgt Mark Andrews dragging Pamela Somerville, 59, through Melksham police station in Wiltshire."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-wiltshire-11214026

Another one from last year...

"A police watchdog is investigating an alleged attack on a man by three officers in Wigan, Greater Manchester.

In video obtained by the Sunday Mirror the man - said to be Lance Corporal Mark Aspinall - is shown being pinned to the ground and repeatedly punched. "

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/manchester/7757229.stm

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion